Hi All,

Please excuse my genuine ignorance with respect to this topic, but could some one enlighten me. I have been reading on various blogs and networks the rulings by your judiciary in the States, either banning or over turning gay marriage...NYC...Washington etc etc. Is there already in place the option for a Civil Partnership? and why is the issue of full...'church marriage' the burning question at the present time; or do these decisions actually ban any form of legally recognized partnership frame work (eeew that sounds so techy and horrible...but you get my drift). Here in the UK we have full Civil Partnership as do many European countries, not marriage(well some do), not straight registry weddings,with different albeit much the same...rights for gay couples.

I am amazed at the politizizng of this issue and the frenzy the Christian lobbyists are getting themselves into.....whilst at the same time feel a great saddness that the worlds most powerful democracy is going out of its way to demonize their own citizens and deny millions (UK Govt officially est gay pop at 6%) of men and women basic fundamental human rights.

Ok so..who can explain it for me...ta in advance.

Cheerio for now...Vincent...xx

hello Vincent,

I'll take a stab at explaining some of this from the perspective of a USA citizen watching all of this unfold here.

To begin with there is a difference in the way a marriage is made legal here vs. for example the way it happens under Civil Code in continental Europe.

In Europe under Civil Cod, you must be married by the State (nation) to be recognized as married. You then may choose to go to the Church to get married. A marriage only conducted in the Church in Europe is not automatically recognized by the State (I'm not speaking of all countries in Europe, my knowledge is with the laws in Gemrany & France). Therefore, probably to the great consternation of his royal Popeness, even if you get married in the Church in Germany or France, the State does not recognize your marriage until you are married by a State official. So you have two weddings. In Germany there are special court houses that simply cater to weddings because (surprise surprise) not so many people even care any more to marry in the Church.

Cross the big pond.....

Over here, marriage has been a domain of the state, so each state has it's own rules regarding who may or may not marry. To make matters more murky or complicated, there is a precedent (maybe it's in the USA Constitution, not sure)...that marriages (legal contract) from one state are recognized in another. There's also another key, a Constitutional clause called 'Equal Protection'.

What these lawsuits are trying to do is claim that they are not equally protected under the constitution. Another wave of lawsuites that is coming down the road are those that say hey, I'm gay and I was married in Massachusetts where it's legal, but I live in Georgia, so if you recognize a marriage of one couple but not the other, that's not equal protection.

Back to the Church and State thing. Here, the State licenses priests/pastors to perform marriages. So, you simply get a marriage license and if you are married before a licensed priest, then you are legally married before the eyes of the state. You can still opt to marry before a state official, who is non-religious. But it's not required. That's where the difference is between the USA and Europe.

In the realm of civil unions, I think only New Hampshire and Connecticut allow them (maybe Hawaii, too, not sure). Anyway not many states allow that. Most of the rest have laws or state constitutional ammendments that define marriage as between a man and woman. Even California! Although that law is under review by the state supreme court.

In the last few months the news has not been good for Gay Marriage. Here in Georgia, the supreme court ruled against us. So normal hetero marriage is safe for now in Georgia. Hallelujia!

The next level of fight is to have parnter benefits declared illegal. That fight is under way here in Georgia and in Michigan, where certain state organizations or municipalities that currently offer medical insurance to same sex partners is being challenged as unconstitutional per the anti marriage ammendments. Personally I think they'll probably win.

Vincent, there is a simple argument that the hetero's use to win every time. The argument is something like this.....

You and I have the same right as anyone else to marry. That right is to marry a woman. Therefore there is no discrimination.

Hope I helped in providing some understanding.

Jim

I'd like to pick up right where Jim left off...

"You and I have the same right as anyone else to marry. That right is to marry a woman. Therefore there is no discrimination."

That may be one of the arguments against gay marriage in the States, but another reason used is "if gays marry they will undermine heterosexual marriage"

hmmmm....

I had a gay partner whom I met at age 22. We were together 3 years and lived together as a couple for 2 years. We were both completely in the closet except with each other and a couple of really close friends of each of us. The relationship hit the rocks, so we went to therapy. The therapist looked at my partner, who was 15 years older, and said "the reason the relationship does not work is you are gay." Then he looked at me and said "and you are not". We split up, I continued therapy for two years with this "therapist" to become "straight". It's just what I needed. I never wanted to be gay, and this "therapist" was going to save me. I now realize he viewed me as young, vulnerable and changeable. My partner was well educated with a PhD and set in his ways. Our real issue was probably our age difference, which likely was surmountable with good therapy. He was a great guy.

I met my wife while still in therapy and disclosed everything to her on our very first date. Remarkably, she wanted to keep dating. She initiated sex, I loved it... and I was convinced I was "cured". She became friends with my ex gay partner. He remained our friends until the day 3 years later when I sent him our wedding invitation. He told me I was making a mistake. Mutual friends said he still carried a flame for me. I didn't want to hear any of that so that was that, I was straight, married, and had no room for gay people in my "new" life.

Fast forward 19 years later and 18 months post very painful divorce and what do we have? In hindsight, a marriage that was a train wreck waiting to happen and never should have taken place. Years of confussion wondering why my "straight cure" did not last; more years of therapy and fervent religious practices to try and "kill my gay leanings"; four wonderful albeit disappointed and probably confused children; a 44 year old gay man (who still does not "want" to be gay) who can't quite figure out where he fits in to society; and a 40 year old straight woman trying to make up for lost time and start her life over with a new, allegedly straight, partner after partner, after partner...

So the question seems obvious to me and so does the answer: Which does more to undermine heterosexual marriage? Supporting a 20-something and his gay partner in their domestic relationship (a.k.a. gay marriage) by affirming it and making it stronger? Or sending the clear societal, religious and family message that the only legitimate relationship is one man and one woman... resulting in a gay man and a straight woman entering a marriage with disatrous results?

The pain of life is often the lessons learned are often learned too late.

David

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world" - Mahatma Gandhi

I read somewhere recently that it was the USA,which despite the protections this new world and it's legislation etc gave to its citizens....was in fact the last to give women the vote and black people fundamental human rights re equality. So I guess it will be no different for the 3-4 million for Americans who happen to be gay.....Your day will come.

As for marriage, well I understand the demands we make around this issue,and the counter arguements from within our community re not wanting to ape st8 institutions and social contracts. However surely despite all the moral biblical whohaa, there must be a recognition that those in the community that are gay and want to be partnered must have the same rights, responsibilities and protections within the law as those who are heterosexual,whether that be via some State registered process...or in time a church based ceremony for those for whom faith is integral in their lives?

I am so so saddened by the list of recent failed judgements, of all the countries in the world, I would hope and wish that the States would shine a light and lead the way for all its people.Whilst I do love the States and probably would choose to live there if I could from all the other places in the world, in this respect I am glad to be in the UK. Here, come Nov the final piece of legislation to prevent any form of discrimination based on sexuality with regards to the provision of goods and services will become law.

As for you David, life has dealt you a bum deal or two, but please after all this time etc do not beat yourself up or hate yourself for being gay. We are who we are and I know as a man who didn't get my act together until I was nearly 40, life begins the day we choose for it to happen. My life, that of my son's mother...my son's are so much better..healthier...happier....honest and fulfilling now than they ever could have been before.

Gay is what I am, there is no changing it. I, like you in my late teens/early 20's would have not choosen to be gay, changed that if I could. Well tough shit that's what we are, it's not a life style choice, who would given the potential pain and discrimination, but we don't have to choose, its what nature...god...fate had for us. AND I for one am thankful for it, I am unique, can make a difference, challenge my self...my son...those that know me to rethink things every day.

Also you are right, if they would let us gay guys marry then we would stop marrying those st8 gals.

Cheerio for now....Vincent...x

PS..thanks Jim for the info. most helpful bro

Good posts David and Vincent.

One more little tidbit of information about the wonderful 'equal right's, democracy and freedom' bullshit of the USA.......

It wasn't until 1968 when it was actually legal for a man and woman of different races could marry in those states where it was illegal (most southern states).

However and just to lower the bar a little here, the USA is not the only country which we'd find things like this incredible. It was I think the 1980's when women in Switzerland finally gained the right to vote. Yup, Switzerland. Imagine that.

One more thing. I completely understand David, your not wanting to be gay because I've been there as well. Look, I was married for nearly 15 years and tried it myself.

However, when you finally let go and realize you don't need your mother or father's approval for who you are, when you don't need to depend on a sibling for support and you think hard about who your friends really are and those friends accept you 100%, then you can begin to accept yourself for who you are, not what others want you to be.

You've got to be you, not someone else. That was the hardest thing for me to accept. I'll tell you though, coming out to my kids and their acceptance helped a lot !

Cheers for now


Jim

Read this in one of my daily read blogs today (Proceed at Your Own Risk)...interesting take on the situation.

"Wisconsin labor unions are realizing that the initiative to ban gay marriage could easily lead to a loss of civil rights and domestic and employee benefits that are currently enjoyed by many union members who are not gay but are also not living according to Christian Fundamentalist rules. As a result, unions representing teachers, prison workers, public service and health care workers and many other employees are now joining forces with gay rights advocates to fight the ban scheduled for a vote on November 7.

The unions are making substantial donations, organizing volunteers and educating their members as part of their attempts to make Wisconsin the first sate to defeat a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Source

You've seen this before, but it's always worth repeating. From a Christian survivor of the Holocaust:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."

"You've got to be you, not someone else. That was the hardest thing for me to accept. I'll tell you though, coming out to my kids and their acceptance helped a lot !" Absofrigginlutely Jim....nice one and thoughtful reminder for me..thanks

Cheerio for now..Vincent